Saturday, April 1, 2017

The cropped-out GM tag

Field trials of genetically modified crops in
Maharashtra will have far-reaching consequences

Suman Sahai

The Maharashtra government’s recent
endorsement for the field trial of five genetically modified (GM) crops —
brinjal, maize, rice, chickpea and cotton in the state — has set off fresh
controversy around the issue. The central government, so far, has been going
back and forth on granting permission for the field trials of GM foods. All
this is happening against the backdrop of a highly unsatisfactory regulatory
system that is under challenge in the Supreme Court and a report by the
court-appointed technical expert committee that has recommended a 10-year
moratorium on the commercialisation of GM foods.

Field trials are done as a prelude to the
commercial release of GM crops. There is no system in place as yet for the
labelling of GM foods, so what we are seeing is the government readying for
commercialisation of GM foods without labels, in violation of India’s
official policy.

India’s official position has been for
mandatory labelling but it has failed to make any headway in implementing GM
labelling and there is utter confusion among agencies with overlapping
authorities and lapsed deadlines. The earliest position was taken by Codex
India which was housed within the ministry of health and family welfare and
subsequent to the constitution of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of
India (FSSAI), has come under the latter’s jurisdiction.

At the international level, India had joined
Norway and other countries to ask for mandatory labelling of all food and
food ingredients produced by genetic engineering at the 27th session of the
Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) in 1999. However by the CCFL of 2008,
India had changed its position radically. This was a result of India signing
the Indo-US nuclear deal in 2005 to promote among other things, biotechnology.
The US is opposed to labelling GM foods and under US influence, India
abandoned its insistence on comprehensive mandatory labelling of GM foods.

On the domestic front, two developments have
taken place with respect to labelling.

The Directorate-General of Foreign Trade
(DGFT) issued a gazette notification in April, 2006 by which it prohibited
the import of any food product that contains GM material without the prior
approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) or the Review
Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM). Further, if the imported food had
GM components, it would have to be labelled. The DGFT issued another
notification in July, 2007, which specifically disallowed the import of GM
rice. All rice imports had to be labelled “GM Free” by the country of export.

In 2006, the ministry of health & family
welfare woke up to the reality of GM food and food ingredients freely coming
into India. It framed draft rules on labelling under the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and introduced a new rule, applicable to both imported
and domestically produced food. This Rule 37-E mandated compulsory labelling
of GM food, including primary and processed foods as well as food
ingredients, food additives and any food product that may contain GM
material. Labels on imported food also had to declare that the food had been
cleared for marketing and use in the country of origin. Predictably, the food
processing industry reacted immediately and opposed the rule on labelling.

What follows this development is unclear.
Apparently after two to three years of consultations, the health ministry
stopped pursuing GM labelling and as it appears, passed the buck to the FSSAI
which became operational by 2011. But as we will see, the confusion does not
end with the establishment of the FSSAI. In fact it was confounded by the
emergence of the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill,
proposed as the new regulatory system for GMOs. The BRAI bill has lapsed with
the change in government but it may be revived in some form. In any case,
since neither the GEAC nor the BRAI bill have the responsibility for
labelling, presumably the FSSAI will have to frame rules and protocols for
the labelling of GM food — a rather difficult and complex task for which the
FSSAI seems neither willing nor perhaps has the capability.

The next act in the labelling saga was staged
by the department of consumer affairs which promulgated the Legal Metrology
(Packaged Commodities) Amendment Rules, 2012 which mandated that “Every package
containing the genetically modified food shall bear at the top of its
principal display panel the words ‘GM’.” The FSSAI quickly opposed these
rules because it felt that the department of consumer affairs was intruding
upon its mandate but it has done precious little itself to develop any
labelling standards.

The FSSAI has nevertheless constituted a panel
on GM foods which produced a review of various labelling standards in
different countries. The FSSAI report tends to favour voluntary labelling and
echoes the view of the biotech industry that mandatory labelling will
increase prices for consumers and may limit consumer choice because GM foods
will be pushed out of the market as has happened in the EU.

Labelling reducing consumer choice would be a
startling argument from any perspective but in this case, it is of a piece
with the official Indian position retreating from its avid support for
labelling GM foods. At any rate, nothing has ensued so far from the FSSAI
report. As of today, India has no framework to implement the labelling of GM
foods.

If India is planning to adopt GM foods, it
must first ensure that there are appropriate systems in place.
Operationalising labelling will be a very complex task given our fragmented
and decentralised agriculture and food sector. Our food is not sold in
convenient packages that can be labelled. It is usually bought loose from
local shops and vendors. There must also be a legal regime for liability and
redress. In its absence, who will be held liable for violations? Who will
have to compensate organic farmers if their produce is contaminated by GM
foods ? What if there is an accident and harmful GM material spills out into
the fields or the markets, as has happened several times in the US? Who will
be made to clean up the mess and compensate those who have been victims of
the accident?

The author is a scientist and founder of the
research and advocacy group Gene Campaign (www.genecampaign.org)

5 comments:

Are you in need of a loan? Do you want to pay off your bills? Do you want to be financially stable? All you have to do is to contact us for more information on how to get started and get the loan you desire. This offer is open to all that will be able to repay back in due time. Note-that repayment time frame is negotiable and at interest rate of 3% just email us creditloan11@gmail.com

About Me

Dr. Suman Sahai, who has had a distinguished scientific career in the field of genetics, is a recipient of the Padma Shri,the Borlaug Award, Outstanding Woman Achiever awards, the BirbalSahni Gold Medal and the Order of the Golden Ark .
Dr. Sahai is founder Chairperson of the Gene Campaign which is a leading research and advocacy organization, working on issues relating to food, nutrition and livelihoods. She has published extensively on science and policy issues and is a member of several national policy forums on scientific research and education, biodiversity and environment, biotechnology and bioethics as well as intellectual property rights.
Dr Sahai chaired India’s Planning Commission Task Force on ‘Agro biodiversity and Genetically Engineered Organisms’, for the XIth Plan. She was a member of the Steering Committee of the National Biodiversity Board , the Expert Committee on Biotechnology Policy and the Bioethics Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research.She has served on the Research Advisory Committees of national scientific institutions.
Dr Sahai can be reached at www.genecampaign.org and mail@genecampaign.org